Saturday, 30 September 2017

It would be better - indeed it is ultimately necessary - that people become real Christians; but in the modern world, nearly all real Christians are fundamentally (i.e. deeply)terribly deficient and defective.

And I am not talking about failing to live-up to ideals of Christian morality - I mean that their whole way of thinking and being is anti-Christian, contradicts Christianity.

In sum, modern Christians believe as Christians, but think as materialist atheists.

Indeed, much of the problem is exactly this disconnection between believing and thinking - Christians 'believe' all sorts of things - but their actual living at the level of thinking is all-but unaffected by those beliefs. I don't just mean that Christian thinking fails to match up to Christian beliefs, but that their beliefs don't affect their thinking At All.

The awareness of this problem is typically unarticulated - the grumbling unease and dissatisfaction that Christians feel about not becoming a New Person; the way that the world around and other people seem unreal and meaningless - a mere shadow play. Their inability to know what is really going-on, and what they ought to do about it...

Leftism

Why are so many modern Christians Leftists?

Many are quite extreme Leftists; but nearly all are adherents and supporters of mainstream politics of one sort or another, accepting the secular ideas of what is significant and important (e.g. The News shapes their Christian agenda).

And all mainstream politics is Leftist (everything in public discourse, in official communications and the the mass media - including all the conservative, nationalist, supposedly 'Right' wing groups and parties - all are fundamentally secular-materialist in ideology and thought-structures).

How is it that Christians cannot just see that, know that? Something is terribly wrong...

Dishonesty

Why are so many Christians so deeply dishonest in their work? And why can't they perceive this?

Modern work demands systematic dishonesty - especially at the managerial level. Surely this is obvious? - yet many Christians occupy leadership and managerial roles, which they occupy because they are good-at dishonesty, and where they are dishonest for a living; and there is no sign they feel they have anything to repent.

Christians are too ready to excuse-themselves on grounds of pragmatism, and to try and distinguish in their actions between a stark made-up lie (regarded as bad) and the deniable deliberate misleading of others (regarded as part of life...) - when in fact the deniable misleading of others, often pursued through many stages and levels of organisation, is a far worse (because more calculated) sin than is making-stuff-up on the spur of the moment.

The problem, as usual, is not the sinning, but the making of excuses to oneself and others - it is the failure to repent, because the sin has been reframed as necessary, hence 'actually good' (in an inverted way)...

In sum, to be dishonest and deny it is literally to do the work of the devil - and to do it systematically and strategically. This is a measure of the extreme spiritual hazard of the dishonesty of modern Christians

Bureaucracy

The modern world is bureaucratic, and bureaucracy is totalitarian, and bureaucracy is death.

Yet modern Christians are bureaucratic - they believe-in bureaucracy as the best and proper way to do things - from government down to the local jumble sale. Their churches are bureaucratic - everywhere and in all things is the implicit assumption is that the organisation is right, the group is right, committees are right, the vote is right...

All this is obviously and profoundly anti-Christian (because Christianity is rooted in individual agency, and only individuals can be moral or know The Good) - and yet Christians cannot see it!

Nihilists

Modern Christians - even the real Christians - regard the world reductionistically, materialistically, as positivists.

Events are seen as either mechanically caused or else random - even one's own thoughts are thus seen; the world of the modern Christian is drained of meaning at the finest and most exact level of analysis.

They theoretically-believe that the world is God's creation, but in their moment-by moment thoughts they regard the world just as described by 'science' (maybe sometimes externally-shaped by God).

In sum, modern Christians think as nihilists - actual-believers in nothing, deniers of the reality of the real. They do not see the world as alive and full of purpose, and they do not even want-to - they don't think this is important. They think the only thing important is what they believe, what they profess, how they live by the rules.

And the fact that everything around them and within-them is - in practice - regarded as unconscious, dead and pointless is (if thought-about at all) regarded as a sign of progress in Christianity, an escape from superstition; and indeed a positive good since it avoids the deceptive and demonic hazards of 'spirituality'.

Literalism

In sum, modern real Christians are deadly-literal, superficial, fearful - and wrong.

Their literalism shows in how they regard themselves as mechanical effect; agency merely as a craving to be externally-controlled and compelled by rules, bureaucracies, drilled-in habits of behaviour. They are superficial, lack spontaneity, are phony and manipulative in their interactions - and this is because they are thinking like modern materialists while trying to live by a set of beliefs and practices that are merely stuck onto the surface of this purpose-denying, meaning-denying, life-denying set of fundamental assumptions.

Modern Christians are like crude Robots who say and do the right things - but inside are merely whirring circuits following rigid programmes.

And they like that way... Because, technically, modern real Christians are, at the deepest level, metaphysically atheist materialists; and their Christianity is a stuck-on lifestyle choice at the level of professed beliefs and adhering strictly to the rules.

But nobody is perfect! It is, indeed, very difficult indeed Not to be a materialist atheist at the metaphysical level, in the modern world - our upbringing, our history, and present society all inculcate and enforce it.

However, it is essential that modern Christians become aware of this very serious, very important, and indeed lethal defect of their faith.

They must not ignore their own gnawing, endemic dissatisfactions at the shallowness and meaninglessness of their lives. They must notice and acknowledge their profound state of alienation and the superficiality of their beliefs and practices. The mismatch between what they profess and how they think...

Only if these facts are known can they be repented; and only if they are repented can they (even potentially) be overcome.

Friday, 29 September 2017

The paradox of modern Western life is usually missed. Officially we live in a materialist and secular world, in which the religious and spiritual is excluded from all serious and official public discourse; and where public priorities are selfish personal values such as prosperity, comfort, convenience, thrills and entertainment.

Yet if this was the whole story then public discourse would be much more Right Wing than it actually is - because materialism implies some form of selfishness - probably enlightened self-interest.

*

However, as we all know - in fact even the secular Right perspective (traditional patriotic conservatism or Republicanism, even libertarianism) is excluded from public discourse by harshly imposed censorship backed by multiple personal sanctions. To the very limited extent it is allowed, the Right perspective is never engaged-with at the level of argument (but only by ignoring, misrepresenting, changing the subject, demonising, attacking etc.)

For example, mass, open-ended immigration is very clearly lethal to prosperity, comfort, convenience, thrills and entertainment - yet this objection is taboo.

Another example: The sexual revolution and antiracism are both having multiple and severe damaging effects on economic, military and educational effectiveness and efficiency - and on legal coherence and consistency; and this is causing an ever-clearer decline in prosperity, comfort, convenience, thrills and entertainment... Yet objections to such principles are likewise taboo.

*

What this tells us is that the secular-materialist perspective is not the ultimate one in the Modern West - because it is only allowed to operate within a 'higher', much more powerfully-enforced ideological-ethical framework.

Since this overall framework is not materialist - it is in fact necessarily immaterial, indeed the framework is spiritual.

Yet the ruling spiritual framework which constrains materialism denies its own existence. It is there, it is pervasive, it is compulsory, it is enforced by rewards and sanctions... yet it denies its own existence!

There is no explicit statement of the spiritual beliefs, principles, aspirations of the governing ideology of the modern West - on the contrary it is claimed that there is no such ideology, but that The West operates in the absence of any ideology. It is claimed that we are a materialist and pragmatic society without religion - and at the same time everything demonstrates implicitly that we are ruled by spiritual values.

*

Why would the ruling Establishment deny their own spiritual ideology? Why would they deny that they have an ideology? Surely it would be better to make the ruling ideology clear, and try to get everyone to agree with it... this was certainly what happened in past civilisations.

Well, why do you think? To me it is obvious that the existence and nature of the ruling ideology is denied and kept secret because it is evil, hence indefensible.

Explicit, strategic, purposive evil can only succeed by lying and misdirection - and that is precisely what we have.

*

What kind of 'people' would, or could, actively and consciously pursue long-term plans and policies (stretching over many decades) that lead to the destruction of precisely those material values which they simultaneously say are the only true values... This is surely a recipe for absolute spiritual despair, and rejection of all values... Surely a recipe for self-hatred and spiritual-suicide...

To me this seems obviously the work of immortal demons who seek the self-chosen damnation of Men; and that therefore I infer that demons rule this world: at the highest level, they are in control.

More detail than this, I don't know; and I don't feel I need to know more. That fact is enough. The large shape and individual fingerprints of demonic activity are everywhere.

This is spiritual warfare - and only if we recognise the fact can we win.

Thursday, 28 September 2017

Metaphysics is the most important thing in the modern world. But for most modern people metaphysics is gibberish - even worse, metaphysics is boring and irrelevant gibberish...

The usual attitude in English society, as in The West generally, is that the ultimate explanation for everything is a matter of science - of physics, chemistry and biology. It is obvious to everybody that everything began with some kind of big bang as described by physics; with the formation of the stars, solar system, and earth; then chemistry kicked-in until biology emerged; and biology led to plants, animals, intelligence, consciousness then eventually Man - who then developed with the emergence of society, into each of us here and now...

On that basis, there isn't any purpose or meaning to life; and our strivings and relationships are consequences of undirected chance plus past evolutionary pressures. There isn't anything to be said about why we are here, or what we 'ought' to do. Things just are as they are; and n conclusions can be drawn about anything.

Hence the pervasive nihilism of modernity, and the consequent undercurrent of despair. Our dissatisfaction with the pointless futility of everything can be explained, but never gratified.

Upon such metaphysical foundations are constructed the entire structure of the modern world - or, in other words, the modern world has no foundations.

Higher Beings such as Angels are trying to improve us and tidy us up - rather like socialists do, by putting us into a manageable form. Angels naturally abhor the mess that the world has got itself into, and harmony is to be sought at any price. But might it not also be true that God needs the mess?

Arkle sees angels as necessary and integral to God's creation of this world - but, as created persons who have only experienced the bliss and one-sided goodness of Heaven; their perspective is neither that of God, nor of us mortal Men. As such angels have free will, but limited knowledge and capacity - and their understanding is both limited and biased.

In particular, Arkle suggests that angels have a tendency to try and preemptively prevent the suffering caused by bad choices, by enforcing blanket systems of control and order. The comparison he makes with (sincere) 'socialists' is interesting - in sharing the tendency is to 'make' Men good and happy by system, by indoctrination and limitation of free will: indeed, by totalitarian surveillance and control justified by the greater good...

In a nutshell, the tendency of angels may be (albeit with compassionate motivations) to treat Men as children; and thereby keep them as children - prevent Men 'growing-up' - which tends to thwart God's ultimate hope for us (and the reason for creation itself).

It may seem unlikely that God would 'allow' this - but Arkle's interpretation makes sense if we regard creation as being for the benefit of both Men and angels; with Men and angels needing to have life experiences and to learn from them in order that both may progress towards full divinity as Sons and Daughters of God.

The interesting and neglected possibility is therefore that angels - not fallen-angels or demons; but good angels, with good intentions - may be responsible for some significant part of the sufferings of mortal life; and of a particular kind.

This seems like a terrible thing to say - given some traditional understandings of angels as perfect direct messengers and implementers of divine will. But maybe the observable and often extreme 'messy' situation of earthly life is the best that can be done all-round; given the extreme difficulty of what God wants us to achieve in our long, zig-zag road to full divinity ('us' being both mortal Men and angels) - And therefore perhaps indeed God needs the mess.

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

There isn't an agreed word to describe the kind of Christian I am - so I will label it Intuitive Christianity for present purposes - and compare it with what might broadly be called Catholic and Protestant versions. Understand that this is a short post - and what is described are 'ideal types' meant to capture a particular essence of each version. I am talking of ultimates - not of practical living - which will surely be multi-factorial...

The transition between childhood and adulthood takes place at adolescence - and adolescence is the only path from the one to the other. The essence of this transition - from an ultimate and divine perspective - is the transition from Obedience to Freedom.

Obedience roots The Good externally - in some person, institution or social group. The Christian assumption is that these external sources are conduits of God's will.

(As in childhood - the child's role is to know and follow the guidance of parents, family, church, school, social group etc. - and such obedience is 'passive' - it does not require consciousness, and indeed young children are only somewhat conscious.)

Freedom roots The Good in The Self, internally. The Christian assumption here is that God is within-us - as a deep, true Real Self.

Note that Freedom (that is Agency) is truly Good only if the Real Self is Good. And in practice this is a matter of contention among Christians - because clearly the overall-self is not wholly Good - so some kind of discrimination, definition and distinction concerning the Self is required.

1. The Catholic belief is that the Church (the mystical Church, contrasted with the organisation) is Good, is the conduit of God's will - but the individual is fallen and (in essence) depraved such that for the individual to be Good entails Obedience to the (mystical) Church.

God intervenes to ensure that The Church is and remains the conduit for God's will, and worthy of Obedience. Freedom is mostly about choosing this Obedience.

In practice, therefore, all Men are more-or-less permanently children; so permanent Obedience a necessity. Freedom/ Agency of The Self would be a cruelty; because as individual agents all Men are damned... self-damned by their sin and incapacities.

Freedom is therefore, and necessarily, tightly circumscribed by the overall duty of Obedience.

2. The Protestant also believes that Men are depraved; but with the capacity to know Good by Obedience to divine revelation, especially as encapsulated in Scripture.

That is, all Men - as autonomous selves - are incapable of Freedom in the ultimate sense of agency rooted in the Self; but all Men have the innate capacity to understand Scripture and choose Obedience to it.

God intervenes to make this understanding of scripture possible; and that the Freedom of choosing to obey Scripture will be under God's will. Freedom is tightly circumscribed by the overall duty of Obedience.

3. My understanding (Intuitive Christianity) is that Freedom/ Agency is our proper, divinely-destined and ultimate goal - here-and-now, in The West; superseding the primacy of Obedience (whether to Church, Scripture or any other external source).

Christianity therefore ought to be rooted in the Real Self and pervasively based upon the Real Self; and Freedom ought not to be constrained to the primal chose of Obedience to Church or Scripture; but this discerning Freedom ought to be incrementally extended to all other matters of primary importance.

This is based upon a conviction that the Real Self is in fact God-within-us; and also distinctive to ourselves alone. In other words, as children of God we inherit God's divinity - but also each child is unique and has an unique destiny within creation.

(There must be a distinction between the true-real-divine Self which is intrinsically Good - and the multiptude of false selves which arise from error, sin, by inculcation, for expedience etc. - which may be good or evil; but are not divine, are often arbitrary and typically transient.)

We all (potentially) know The Good innately and directly - and the ultimate authority is therefore with, not external; the ultimate value is Freedom to live from the Real Self, not by Obedience to any external source excepting our direct knowing of God.

Therefore, in an ultimate sense, my conviction is that Man - any man, any woman - may attain to salvation and live a life of theosis from-within; without membership of The Church or access to Scripture of other external sources; and, indeed, in an ultimate sense it is proper and best for a Christian's Life to be rooted in n the Freedom of the Real Self, and not in any external source.

In sum: Freedom is a higher (more mature, more adult) value than Obedience.

External sources may of course be helpful, perhaps very helpful - but here-and-now in The West external sources may also be extremely harmful - the Church may be (usually is) subverted, corrupted and anti-Christian; Scripture, its translation and its interpretation is likewise usually corrupted, distorted, selective, misrepresented - inverted.

Indeed, it is precisely this situation that creates the urgent necessity of an Intuitive Christianity based on the individual and Freedom.

My understanding, therefore, is that Freedom has always been an essential element of Christianity; but in the past Freedom was used to make a single choice of Obedience; of whom or what to serve. In the past Obedience was more important than Freedom.

My contention is that this primal and vital Christian Freedom ought now to be extended to all major and significant aspects of Faith. From now, Freedom is more important than Obedience. That is our divine destiny; if Man is to move from his current spiritual adolescence into adult maturity.

Tuesday, 26 September 2017

The triumph of totalitarian evil will, in and of itself, engineer people into the situation where they find themselves utterly isolated - hence very difficult to influence in any predictable fashion.

Individuals will then stand in awareness of little more than their existential essence - and that, in itself, is a state highly conducive to the intuitive recognition of the reality of God.

At this extreme the reality of God becomes unavoidable and each faces the stark choice of accepting or rejecting his creation and love. This choice cannot be compelled either way - and each has the resources to choose God, if he so chooses - a situation of extreme hazard for evil!

Therefore, the closer evil comes to a situation of final victory, the more brittle and vulnerable that triumph becomes.

This is a dry time for me. Since I wrote several blogs about primary thinking, I have found myself first taking a welcome break and doing other things (and, probably, becoming reliant on external stimuli); and then (and currently) unable to be aware of my thinking - lacking the clarity-of-knowing which I had recently grasped.

I can remember that I was doing primary thinking, but I cannot re-live nor actively experience what it was like; nor how to do it. There is a block of fuzziness standing between what I want to do and the thinking itself...

Such dry times seem to have been a feature of my life - and dryness (disaffection, incipient despair or the like) always follow any kind of apparent breakthrough - what they show, forcibly, is that the breakthrough was much less robust than it seemed at the time.

I thought that I knew solidly... but I didn't really, it wasn't solid.

Of course, this is what would be expected since this mortal life is a time of experiencing and learning.

There is nothing to be gained by merely 'basking' in achievement... We get a few hours or a couple of days of basking, as a psychological reward for progress - however, then we need to get on and learn something else, or learn what we thought we already had learned - but more deeply.

To read this chapter slowly and carefully, understanding at each step, may provide a breakthrough for some people.

**

I believe I have given sufficient reasons for making thinking the starting point for my study of the world. When Archimedes had discovered the lever, he thought he could lift the whole cosmos from its hinges, if only he could find a point of support for his instrument. He needed something that was supported by itself and by nothing else.

In thinking we have a principle which subsists through itself. Let us try, therefore, to understand the world starting from this basis. We can grasp thinking by means of itself; the question is, whether we can also grasp anything else through it.I have so far spoken of thinking without taking account of its vehicle, human consciousness. Most present-day philosophers would object that before there can be thinking, there must be consciousness. Hence we ought to start, not from thinking, but from consciousness. There is no thinking, they say, without consciousness...

To this I must reply that in order to clear up the relation between thinking and consciousness, I must think about it. Hence I presuppose thinking.

Nevertheless one could still argue that although, when the philosopher tries to understand consciousness he makes use of thinking and to that extent presupposes it, yet in the ordinary course of lifethinking does arise within consciousness, and therefore presupposes consciousness...Now if this answer were given to the world creator when he was about to create thinking, it would doubtless be to the point. Naturally it is not possible to create thinking before consciousness. The philosopher, however, is not concerned with creating the world but with understanding it.

Accordingly the philosopher (who is not the creator) has to seek the starting point, not for the creation of the world, but for the understanding of it.

It seems to me very strange that the philosopher should be reproached for troubling himself first and foremost about the correctness of his principles instead of turning straight to the objects which he seeks to understand! The world creator had above all to know how to find a vehicle for thinking, but the philosopher has to seek a secure foundation for his attempts to understand what already exists.

How, then, does it help us to start with consciousness and subject it to the scrutiny of thinking, if we do not first know whether thinking is in fact able to give us insight into things at all?We must first consider thinking quite impartially, without reference to a thinking subject or a thought object. For both subject and object are concepts formed by thinking.

There is no denying that before anything else can be understood, thinking must be understood. Whoever denies this fails to realize that man is not the first link in the chain of creation but the last. Hence, in order to explain the world by means of concepts, we cannot start from the elements of existence which came first in time, but we must begin with that element which is given to us as the nearest and most intimate.

We cannot at one bound transport ourselves back to the beginning of the world in order to begin our studies from there, but we must start from the present moment, and then see whether we can ascend from the later to the earlier...

Only if the philosopher recognizes that which is last in time as his first point of attack, can he reach his goal. This last thing at which world evolution has arrived is, in fact, thinking.*

There are people who say it is impossible to ascertain with certainty whether our thinking is right or wrong, and thus our starting point is in any case a doubtful one.

It would be just as sensible to doubt whether a tree is in itself right or wrong! Thinking is a fact, and it is meaningless to speak of the truth or falsity of a fact.

I can, at most, be in doubt as to whether thinking is correctly applied, just as I can doubt whether a certain tree supplies wood adapted to the making of this or that useful object. I can understand anyone doubting whether, by means of thinking, we can
gain knowledge of the world; but it is incomprehensible to me how anyone
can doubt the rightness of thinking in-itself.

To show how far the application of thinking to the world is right or wrong, is precisely the task of this book.

Friday, 22 September 2017

I have found Rudolf Steiner's instructions and exercises concerning 'how to do' primary thinking (or, what he terms pure thinking, or his type of meditation) to be misleading and indeed counterproductive; since they concentrate on concentrating - on attaining a thought and holding it, expanding it etc...

In the first place, this method splits the mind into that part which is doing the concentrating, and the results of that concentrating. Secondly it is insufficient - from personal experience, I could concentrate in the prescribed manner (e.g. when I was doing theoretical science) long before I could do primary thinking. Thirdly, and consequently, the results of this concentration style of meditation are misleading (because it is easy by concentration to 'force' thinking towards pre-determined conclusions, and thereby create false content).

Fourthly and most tellingly, it doesn't seem to work. After all, this was not how Steiner himself learned to meditate, so there is little reason to suppose that other people could get to where Steiner was by using a different method. Also, the capacity of his exercises to induce 'clairvoyance' in the many members of the Anthroposophical Society who have followed then, seems (to the observer) to be a near-total failure.

If not, then what?

We need an 'external' technique of holding attention - of stopping it being distracted, or sliding around. For me this can be taking notes, reading short passages, drawing 'doodles' - essentially with a pen in the hand. Others would need to find what worked for them.

What to think about? That depends on your motivation, here-and-now. Motivation is one of the keys: it needs to be some-thing that you really want to know, to think-about.

Steiner, by contrast, prescribes arbitrary subject matter for his thinking exercises (this plant, this stone...). This seems like seriously bad advice: ineffective, because the motivation for arbitrary thinking will surely be feeble; and also (in a sense) arbitrary motivation is immoral, because this is trying to use primary thinking for frivolous or expedient purposes (and primary thinking, being in the realm of reality/ truth/ beauty/ virtue, will not - indeed cannot - be so used).

Once the attention has being controlled by some such external means, the whole of the mind can fill the activity of thinking from the deep and true self. It wells-up. And leads to further notes/ doodles etc. just as a way of holding the line; while allowing it to develop by internal logic.

The key, though, is metaphysical - it is to acknowledge the validity of thinking; the validity of the process, content, findings... We need to internalise the fact that primary thinking is not constrained by what we term 'evidence'; because primary thinking happens in the domain of universal reality, hence it is necessarily true.

(This is a delight to observe - in full consciousness: the emergence of truth, quite naturally, spontaneously, fluently, and without boundaries. This is also why the kind of wound-up state of concentration is hostile to the process.)

The content of primary thinking is intrinsically valid in and of itself - so we want to be attentive but relaxed, as it comes-forth.

Of course, summarising, recording, transmitting this primary truth makes the resulting communications prone to all sorts of possibilities of error, distortion and misunderstanding - if we try to use this knowledge.

But the direct knowledge of primary thinking is itself is pure, real, and true.

We live in what Rudolf Steiner (and, from him, Owen Barfield) calls the Consciousness Soul era - i.e. a time in which we not only cannot see (or otherwise perceive) spirits, but we have also learned to distrust perceptions that (until the modern age of science) were simply taken for granted.

And to distrust reason. To distrust all positive statement, in fact. (After all, we might be insane, but not realise it.)

So science was supposed to be derived only from objective (universally shared) perceptual information, but then science subverted perceptual information (especially with quantum theory) - leaving us with... nothing. (i.e. nihilism.)

Once IN this state for any length of time, it is difficult to escape - but most people who do try to get-out (rather than simply obliterating their consciousness with distractions, drugs, sex &c) usually try to return to a previous naivety. However, simple, child-like ignorance cannot be recovered - when we have known, we cannot make it as if we hadn't known (obliteration is not the same as innocence).

Yet the state of nihilism is itself incoherent, when positively-stated. One cannot argue for nihilism; there can be no evidence for it, no reason to support it... perhaps nihilism can best be described as rooted in a state of existential fear - fear that nihilism may be true; and inability to find reassurance that it is not true.

What Steiner and Barfield offer is a way-through nihilism, and forward. The state of nihilism is something which must, indeed, be got-through - it is a necessary phase in the attainment of freedom.

As I understand it, the only way out from nihilism is by metaphysical examination - and by the decision to rely upon intuition.

That is: We expose and examine our primary assumptions about reality; and then we make the assumption that we will base our future metaphysics upon the primal personal act of intuition that intuition is valid.

That becomes the base for everything else - but such an intuition cannot be given by anybody or anything; but each must know it for himself or herself - by convincing experience; and that can only happen by active thinking.

(I mean; this transcendence of nihilism doesn't just come-upon a person passively to-be-accepted; it must be sought by active thinking. Which is why going-through and overcoming nihilism is so rare.)

It is crucial that Christianity is an opt-in religion - it must be chosen, it can only be chosen.

(Therefore Christianity absolutely entails the reality of agency, of 'free will' - and the impossibility of agency on the basis of mainstream modern metaphysics is a reason why normal public discourse is absolutely incompatible with Christianity.)

At the same time, Christianity is true.

This appears to set up some kind of paradox, in the sense that (surely?) if Christianity is true then it must be accepted; yet if it must be accepted then there is no real choosing of it...

My understanding is that this is indeed a genuine contradiction in mainstream 'classical' Christian metaphysics (in which God is omnipotent, and created everything from nothing) - a contradiction to which there is no rational answer; but not in a different theology. Because to deny Christianity on such a scheme, would be to deny reality - which is incoherent.

But, if we instead believe that creation is the effect of God shaping pre-existent chaos - including ourselves as God's children; then reality so far as it is ordered and understandable is God's creation.

However, the primordial chaos included beings: included God, and also ourselves (i.e. Men) but ourselves in a primordial, unconscious, disembodied sense - embryonic and lacking, but existing nonetheless. God's creation was the shaping of chaos, and the parenting of our primordial selves into God's children (as we are now, as we find ourselves).

All that is Good is inside this creation - creation is where the concept of Good has meaning. In particular all loving relationships are inside of creation, made possible by God's creation.

Yet there is another reality outside of creation; so denial of Christianity is not incoherent - there is another reality which might coherently be chosen in preference to God's creation.

What would such an opt-out of God's creation entail? Outside creation is not evil; but it is chaotic, meaningless, purposeless and lacking in any true relationships between beings.

Our primary choice is whether to opt-in to the reality of God's creation - or not. This is a real choice - and has real consequences. In principle a person might simply decline to join creation - and to surrender self-consciousness, and all the personhood which has been given us by becoming a child of God. This is not an evil choice - it is the choice of nihilism, of non-reality - but it is not evil (it indeed bears some relation to the ideal of 'Eastern' religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism).

The evil choice is to decline to joining God's work of creation; but to hold onto God's gifts to us - to hold-onto meaning, purpose and relationship - but to impose our own personal meanings upon them. It is to try and take what is personally gratifying from creation, but not to join creation. It is to adopt a stance towards creation that sees it primarily as a thing to be exploited.

In sum, Christianity is true - because it describes the world of God's creation, in which truth is given meaning and value; but this is not the whole of reality - therefore there is an alternative - therefore must opt one way or the other. And because we are agents (with free will) this choice is real and meaningful.

The necessity of opt-in arises because of the nature of God's plan for creation - which is one in which we (as Men) are agent and divine beings, in loving relationships, engaged in a mutual project of further creation.

(If creation were done and static, there would be no need for agency; but because creation is ongoing and endless, agency is of-the-essence.)

Among divine beings, there is no possibility of ultimate coercion - either we choose to join the great work of creation; or we opt-out fully - or else, as with evil entities, we try to exploit creation for personal gratification.

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

In some situations such as a ritual, the entirety of a tribe may see spirits - but the modern Western anthropologist who is also present sees nothing. Are spirits really there?

Most Western people would say no; and they would explain-away the observing of spirits as some kind of group hypnosis, or wishful thinking, or a conjuring trick of the shaman... or something. Because modern people know (or rather assume as a metaphysical certainty) that spirits don't exist - therefore it doesn't matter what people say or claim: there were no spirits.

Yet, of course, everything we know about everything depends on no more than a consensus among people who report it; or perhaps a consensus among people in some restricted category - sensible people, intelligent people, adults, calm people...

Implicitly, therefore, the modern Westerners claim that all people who see spirits are unreliable, and over-emotional, gullible, unintelligent, immature, dishonest - or something of the kind. When whole tribes or societies claim see spirits - then this is exactly how modern Western people actually, in practice, regard them (although of course they are too afraid, or feel to guilty, actually to say so).

Yet there is something different about spirits... The Western anthropologist and the tribe he is studying all see most things in common - they see the huts, the spears, the food, the animals... but when it comes to spirits the tribe see them and the anthropologist doesn't.

There is something different about spirits - are the really there?

One thing than can be suggested is that there has been a change in human consciousness between the traditional Tribal Man and the modern Western Man. Tribal Man may regard stones as alive and plants as conscious... and he sees spirits.

All true - consciousness differs; but since we are not postmodern relativists - we can still ask what is really going-on. When Tribal Man sees a spirit - is there an object there, or not?

My understanding is that the seeing of spirits is an example of what Owen Barfield calls Original Participation. There is a spirit, but there is no object because it is immaterial - and the evolution of consciousness includes that Modern Man cannot perceive the immaterial...

Why is this? The given answer is that by Not seeing the immaterial, Modern Man is made free.

That which we perceive makes us passive - it is given, we are not free not to respond to it - because the mechanism by which we know it is unconscious. Tribal Man sees spirits, and spirits dominate him in the same way that Modern Man is dominated by whatever he sees.

Where Modern Man goes wrong is is asserting that because he cannot perceive spirits (and neither can he detect spirits with any technology), the spirits are not there: typically, Modern Man claims that the imperceptible does not exist.

The way ahead is to Final Participation; so, what would a Man in Final Participation experience in the situation described? Would he see spirits? No - but he would know the spirits were real. Instead of perceiving, he would know directly.

A Man in Final Participation would consciously know that spirits were present, would know about them (what kind of spirits and where) - but he would not see, hear, touch smell or taste spirits. What is the advantage in that? The answer is Freedom - the answer is Agency.

In Final Participation knowledge is in conscious thinking (i.e. 'primary thinking') - hence all knowledge is thinkable, all thoughts are inter-relatable.

All (primary) thinking (in FP) is real and true.

But the perceiving of Tribal Man is Not real and true - because perceptions are not complete; because all perceptions need to be interpreted. Tribal Man may see spirits, but he must still make sense of what he sees, and there is no guarantee that he will understand spirits correctly - indeed different people in the tribe will probably interpret what they have seen very differently.

Seeing is Not believing; because seeing is incomplete.

It is better Not to see, but instead to know directly - because what is known directly is true. That is why Final Participation is 'final' - because it is true; and it is also Final because it is divine. God knows by Final Participation - once FP is attained, there is nowhere further to go: it is indeed final.

The professional - i.e. presumably paid, but either-way apparently 'full-time' - blog troll is an interesting phenomenon. It could be said that you have only really 'arrived' as a blogger when such persons begin to pay you attention...

My assumption is that such individuals are recruited by the global Establishment as a cheap way of subverting nascent sources of Reality or Good - a single troll can cover a lot of virtual-ground (using various false names, and multiple accounts).

In other words, Christian bloggers should be encouraged, rather than annoyed, by the arrival of professional blog trolls! - since it is strong evidence that you are having an effect (or at least, the powers of strategic evil fear that you may become a threat to their plans).

What are they trying to do? Two things mainly - degrade the quality of the blog so as to put-off readers, and demoralise the blogger by wasting his time answering a never-ending stream of questions, or responding to a deluge of links, and suggestions.

(The equation ten seconds to ask a question/ post a link; ten minutes to answer it/ watch a link - makes this a very efficient process of multiplicative time-wasting.)

The Achilles Heel of blogging, which trolls exploit; is the mushy-libertarian idea (to which I have never subscribed) that the blogger has a duty to publish and respond to comments: that a blog is, in essence, a public forum.

Failure to publish and respond to comments is regarded, in some quarters, as 'censorship' (like that was a bad thing) - or un-macho.

For me, a blog is a kind of writing; and comments ought to enhance the reader's experience. And if commenters are bothering me for any reason - then the software can block them.

And when it comes to time-expended deleting versus making comments - the efficiency factor strongly favours the blogger rather than the troll.

One of the (many) valuable aspects of living in this time, this era, is that clarity is forced-upon-us.

Complexity is stripped-away, things become stark, the path is seen to be two-forked, the choices are bimodal - and the answers are clear, simple and intuitively graspable by a single unambiguous mental act.

To put it another way; the great difficulty in life is asking the right question - because once you have asked the right question, the right answer is lucid (even though we may well reject it). The increasing corruption and dishonesty and sheer-evil of Modern life has a way of forcing us into a corner, until we have little choice but to ask the right question.

Since our world was made, and we arrived in it, as a consequence of a creator who is a loving Heavenly Father; then we can be sure (indeed we must be sure: that is 'faith') that our personal situation is always sufficient for our primary needs. For example, it may (or may not) be forcing us to ask the right question - when we are trying to evade that question.

I was an atheist most of my life, and looking-back I can see that my Real Self always understood correctly the nature of things; but that I was able to reject this deep understanding for reasons such as social inexpediency, or that it did not conform with the materialist metaphysics which I accepted. Consequently, I put a great deal of effort into suppressing my Real Self.

Or, to put it differently - I knew what I should do; but without becoming a Christian I could not justify it to myself, or to other people. I became a Christian (at least initially, tho' not now) so that I could justify my primary intuitions.

But that means that Christianity was already within me. I was, in fact, (wrongly) adopting a kind of expediency, a kind of Marxist/ Leftist attitude, in which my beliefs were being controlled by the publicly-viable mechanisms by which my beliefs could be 'justified', by which I could argue them - the sociological tail was wagging the intuitive dog...

This is another of the things which modern conditions will strip-out-of-us. As the world becomes worse - worse metaphysically, that is worse in terms of the fundamental assumptions of public life and discourse being inverted (including the churches, and the interpretations of tradition, scripture, reason)... then we will be forced into a confrontation of the intuitions of our True Self and... Everything Else... The World.

When we recognise the deceptive futility of trying to communicate with and persuade A World which has blocked its ears and drowned itself in distractions; then we can finally see things clearly. And, if we choose right, we will discover that we have within us everything that we-personally need: we have everything necessary within each of us - including, especially, the Christ.

Monday, 18 September 2017

The very first point made by Colin Wilson's The Outsider (1956) is that sex is not the answer to the problem of existential alienation. He hammered home the point in many further books, including Origins of the Sexual Impulse (1963).

Right up to his last books (such as The Angry Years, 2007) CW made clear how sexual obsession had often ruined the motivation, focus, creativity and integrity of genius-Outsiders (with tragic results for those of us who were depending upon such individuals to point the true way ahead).

Sex (as such, in isolation from married love) leads merely to the desire for more sex. Sex is - like many intense pleasures, such as heroin - addictive. Furthermore, also like heroin, sex induces tolerance, requiring escalation of dose. In those in whom frequency has reached a maximum, there develops a decadent need to push boundaries and transgress - in order to maintain the desire and the response.

Yet sex is a sufficiently plausible delusion that it has captured and redirected the entirety of Western civilization - especially since the middle 1960s.

Sex (often explicitly, often covertly) has displaced and destroyed religion and politics - both of which are vestigial compared with 50 years ago.

Yes, sex cut-loose really is an addiction - and has the same propensities. It does not solve the problems of life, but shoves them aside and implies that sex is the problem instead, and this rapidly becomes a truth.

By becoming a society of sex junkies, the West has dispensed with Christianity, and with Thinking.

Instead of meaning, purpose, fulfilment, and family - we have a vicious cycle of delusional fantasies and brief ecstasies... always receding in power and duration; satisfaction always just out of reach.

I have argued myself into the conviction that - here and now - normal
methods of communication are ineffective when it comes to the most
important matters. They are either ignored or misunderstood; or even
used against that which they advocate. Yet this is a communication - so what am I trying to achieve?

Totalitarianism is the natural end-point for modern, mainstream secular Leftism; and now that 'everybody' in The West is on the Left and primarily secular (including self-identified 'right wingers' and 'Christians') - 'everybody' is united in demanding totalitarian thought control.

In suppressing dissenting voices, it is their own thoughts that crave to be controlled. When life is understood as nothing but subjective feelings, then the idea is for our-selves to be manipulated into having the best feelings: we want to be convinced by soothing propaganda, we want a pleasing alternative reality...

Indeed the alternative - of having to acknowledge that our cherished 'utilitarian' secular beliefs entail zero meaning, purpose, or real communication with anybody - is a conviction of despair. The answer to this existential despair is to have a delusional meaning of life coercively-imposed, such that the delusion becomes asif real.

Anything interfering with this desperate but urgent imperative, anything tending to shatter the conviction in virtual reality, is attacked - is hated, with a visceral power derived from terror.

(It is like the blind terror of an alcoholic at the prospect of being unable to get his drug - he will protect the supplier, he will support anything which ensures his supply. The modern dissenter is seen as someone who is trying to impose delirium tremens.)

Ultimately, the representative modern atheist Westerner lives in mortal fear of media withdrawal, because then there would be nothing but the void: to die alone in misery, despair and terror. Anything better than that!

So totalitarianism thought-control is welcomed: a Brave New World, a Matrix, to live in The Borg... And people just hope that the rulers are benign; or if not benign, then at least not actively-evil... And indeed modern Westerners do not regard purposive evil as a reality - except among those dissenters who threaten their alternative reality... so there is no problem there.

Whatever the multi-billionaire totalitarian globalists want; it cannot be as bad as life without illusions. So, totalitarian mind-control is demanded, welcomed, queued-up for, paid-for, boasted-of.

(Of course anybody, at any time, can turn towards reality - but only by acknowledging the reality of God the creator and our loving father; so obviously That is not going to be a problem...)

Sunday, 17 September 2017

Sixty years ago - Colin Wilson published The Outsider (1956) then Religion and the Rebel (1957) - and at that time everybody recognised what he was talking about: these existentially-overwhelmed outcasts who saw the mainstream world as meaningless and pointless, who felt alienated, and who lacked a place in society.

Wilson gave a name to something everybody knew, something that (under various terms) had been a feature of The West since the dawn of Romanticism (in the late 1700s); and he provided numerous examples of more-or-less famous and accomplished Outsiders - analysis of what had been tried as solutions, and suggestions of what might be done in future...

But here-and-now, Outsiders are not merely socially invisible; but also people don't feel like Outsiders anymore: these are no longer the difficulties people express - the Romantic Outsider has disappeared.

Has the species gone extinct, has the Outsider somehow been 'cured' - is he now integrated into society? Of course not! Everything which caused the Outsider's alienation is now 100... no 10,000 times worse than it was in 1956...

He is still present, he has neither been cured nor integrated; but nowadays he no longer realises he is an Outsider, he no longer feels existential pain, he is outcast but indifferent; because the Outsider is now so rapidly, pervasively and persistently doped and distracted by the pervasive mass media as to be a person who never thinks consecutively for long enough to recognise his situation - never mind to raise objection or do anything effective.

The slightest glimmering degree of becoming existentially alienated, bored or aware; is now almost-instantly extinguished in one or another virtual-reality before it can have any effect.

The Outsider now has zero time to think or feel 'outside' of anything - or inside for that matter.

The cause of the Outsider was human consciousness; the cure would have been a development of consciousness - but what has instead-happened has been the all-but obliteration of consciousness.

Friday, 15 September 2017

An apocalyptic part of me wants to protest at this. Surely the coming of the Lights is a sign? A foreshadowing of some great event to come, as the appearance of Halley's Comet in April 1066 gave notice retrospectively of the impending Norman Conquest.
A balance needs to be struck, therefore, between a rationalistic, unimaginative reading of natural phenomena and a credulous 'signs and wonders' mentality, which leaves us finding messages in cloud formations and the like...

The eye of imagination, the eye of faith, sees beyond the physical components that make up the universe. It does not deny their existence but neither does it view what something 'is made of' as its sole and absolute reality. It goes past the material level (the validity of which it respects) to the spiritual essence which lies at the heart of every created thing...

This theme is illustrated superbly in a passage from Rosemary Sutcliff's Arthurian novel Sword at Sunset (1963). Ambrosius Aurelianus, the High King, is dying of cancer. He takes his lieutenants, Artos (Arthur) and Aquila, on a winter retreat in a remote hunting lodge to secure the succession. A tense political discussion is interrupted by the appearance of the Northern Lights. The tone and flavour of the evening is altered dramatically as new perspectives open up for all three men.

Hearts start to soften. The display outside triggers deep-lying memories in Artos and Aquila and sparks a moment of fraternal understanding. Ambrosius, when he rejoins the conversation, speaks with an imaginative fluidity that was lacking before. The political becomes the mythical. Something hard and tight has been broken apart, creating a space for the deeper pattern behind the flow of surface events to emerge.

This is the lasting impression left on the reader by Sword at Sunset - the political transformed into the mythical. Artos, in the end, follows Ambrosius' recommendation and succeeds him after his death, though not as High King but Emperor of a restored Romano-British Empire. Artos has many scars - physical, emotional and spiritual - and gains little satisfaction from his twenty year reign. He does, however, bring peace and security to the land, and through his words, deeds and presence, sows the seeds of the great national myth that has sustained the imaginative life of our country ever since.

The Northern Lights, on this occasion, are heralds of restoration rather than harbingers of doom, signalling the advent of a mythic, archetypal hero and the flourishing of the realm. Let us hope that their most recent manifestation prophecies equally glad tidings. There is no reason why not. 'We live in a time of revelations,' wrote the maverick English mystic, John Michell. 'When our minds are ready, the pattern will appear.'...

What follows is a recent exchange of e-mails between myself and A Correspondent - in which he makes some excellent and clarifying points on the nature of Primary Thinking. I hope this may help others who are working-through this vital theme...

**

My Correspondent: If primary thinking is certainly true (not just hypothesis), and if it is free, then it seems to follow that it is literally creative. If it is free, it need not conform itself to the world; but if it is true, then there is nevertheless a correspondence between what is thought and what actually exists. There can be no necessary correspondence without some sort of causal relationship, and if primary thinking is not caused by external facts, then the inescapable conclusion (if, given what I have just said about the freedom of thought, I may be permitted the phrase) is that the causation runs the other way: external facts conform themselves to thoughts. Primary thinking creates the world.

My first thought was to call that a reductio ad absurdum and reject the whole "primary thinking" model, but on second thought I think it has to be accepted. After all, theism requires some such concept in order to make sense of God's role as creator. We can hardly imagine that God created the world by physically moving matter around with some kind of construction equipment; rather, he created everything by his "word" or logos. And what is possible for God is possible in a general sense -- and, if we are his children, possible for us.

[In Mormon doctrine, it is said] that Adam helped create the earth, but that when he entered mortality he forgot that fact. And when Adam fell, the earth fell with him. Did God deliberately wreck his own creation as a way of punishing Adam -- or was the world in some way directly dependent on Adam's thoughts, Adam's state of mind? The knowledge of evil came first, and the existence of evil followed. And of course Adam, the prototypical man whose name simply means "Man," represents all of us.

(Is "faith" primary thinking? It, too, is supposed to be both free and true. In the New Testament, faith can make you whole, enable you to walk on water, and cast mountains into the sea -- in other words, the external world changes to conform itself to true faith.)

One problem with this idea is that it threatens to destroy the re-ality ("thingishness") of the world by making it wholly dependent on thought -- a hallucination, essentially. Without something that exists independently of our own thoughts there is, it seems, no world. Another problem is the question of how the thoughts of potentially billions of different primary-thinkers interact to create the one world we presumably share -- and what it is about God's thoughts that make them uniquely powerful, making him "the" creator. But I suppose the second problem offers a solution to the first. The reality of the world comes from its being the production of many minds, and not of mine alone.

Myself: That is my understanding too. We seem to have reached the same place, more or less.

I have found Steiner vital for this, mostly the early three books on Goethe's conception, the PhD thesis, and the Philosophie der Freiheit (variously translated) -
but I only came across a dense and inspiring summary of his early philosophical work yesterday - in the following introduction to a book from 1900:

"One problem with this idea is that it threatens to destroy the re-ality ("thingishness") of the world by making it wholly dependent on thought -- a hallucination, essentially. Without something that exists independently of our own thoughts there is, it seems, no world. "

Not quite. There is a world - a world of raw phenomena, without meaning. There really are things, and we really sense them - but without 'concepts' (which we provide, in thinking) nothing means anything, then nothing could or would add up to anything (our experience would be of a blooming, buzzing confusion, to quote William James).

"Another problem is the question of how the thoughts of potentially billions of different primary-thinkers interact to create the one world we presumably share -- and what it is about God's thoughts that make them uniquely powerful, making him "the" creator."

My understanding is that this makes sense only if it is real/ true thoughts and creations that affect this 'one world' (the world of universal reality). I can't see that it could be reality if it was affected by wrong/ false/ evil thoughts from billions of people - so I assume it is only affected by true/ correct/ good thoughts of people engaged in primary thinking. Perhaps most people, most of the time have zero connection with this real world, and never influence it in any way - while others have interacted significantly.

Another factor is perspective. It seems that part of this view is that in primary thinking we only grasp, but we DO grasp, a corner of reality. This would seem to imply why it is 'a good thing' to have many, many people going on-and-on thinking, and creating, reality - multiple perspectives, so that universal reality becomes more rich and dense, without any end.

That's about as far as I have reached, so far.

My Correspondent: I think we have to go quite a bit further than just saying that thinking gives meaning to existing phenomena. Of course we are free to conceptualize given phenomena in this way or that -- James somewhere uses the example of a hexagram, which can be conceptualized either as two interlocking triangles or as six triangles touching at their corners -- but this is not the true creativity required by thinking which is both free and true. Above and beyond investing phenomena with meaning, primary thinking must be capable of altering the phenomena themselves. Simon actually acquired, by thought alone, the physical ability to walk on water, not merely to interpret his sinking as meaningful. And God is the creator, not the mere interpreter, of the world.

I lean toward thinking of the world of raw, meaningless phenomena as being an effect, rather than a precondition, of primary thinking. The "raw" world may be meaningless in the same sense that a hundred different voices speaking simultaneously produce a meaningless cacophony. The unintended interaction of various meaningful primary thoughts may yield a meaningless hodgepodge. Forging this into a harmony (not a unison!) is the work of creation.

I agree with you that it must be only thoughts that are in some sense "true" that affect the world. The question is what "true" means in this context. It can't have the ordinary meaning of correspondence with pre-existing facts; that would make it impossible for true thoughts to change anything, since their truth would consist in merely reflecting what already existed. It seems we must work out an alternative answer to Pilate's question.

A post of yours that I keep returning to in my thoughts is the one about Hobbes and whether or not he is "really" alive. If we could understand how and in what sense Hobbes is invested with real life (and I certainly accept that he is so invested), I think we would be one step closer to understanding primary or creative thought.

Myself: Corrections accepted, you're right.

My first thought about what is true, is that which conforms with, is compatible with, God's (already in existence) plan of creation.

Thursday, 14 September 2017

Blog Views here have taken another big hit, between 17th and 18th of August, with a sudden halving in daily Views - a change that seems permanent.

This is the second whammy the blog has suffered in 2017; the earlier one of April 21 being noted in a previous post (it is the V at the right side of the graph) - perhaps to do with a change by Google searches that affected mainly the old posts, because daily Views of new blog posts weren't much affected at that time.

﻿

However, the recent (17-18 August) change (shown in the top graph) has hit the Views of new posts; which suddenly, in one day, dropped to less than half the usual - and stayed there.

For whatever reason, and after many years of incremental growth in Views (albeit with a plateau around 2013-15) it looks-like this blog is being strangled, squashed, air-brushed... whether specifically or as a part of some more general trend, I don't know.

There is nothing I intend to do about this - nothing, ultimately, I can do (certainly, I am not looking for sympathy!); but I thought You Ought To Know...

[Note: Comments are closed for this post - but you may e-mail me with any points you wish to raise.]

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

I am struck by the fact that we regard thinking as an activity which can (and should) only destroy. It is thinking that has destroyed the unconscious and spontaneous spirituality of our childhood, and of earlier cultural epochs. So thinking is clearly powerful... yet we deny the validity of thinking when it is used to cure the ills of modernity.

We assume that if something good needs thinking-about, then it is not really-real but only a kind of delusion of 'wishful' thinking. We assume that a Life cannot be built from thinking, that thinking is strong enough to destroy, but too weak to be a foundation of good living.

Of course, thinking can be and is manipulated all the time (but so is feeling, even more so!)

I now understand better that truth comes to us in thinking in a way that deliberately and necessarily does not 'overwhelm' us.

After all, is God overwhelmed by His feelings? Surely not! God is free; and so should we be.

Read the whole thing (including a reappraisal of my reaction to Brexit) at Albion Awakening.

Those angels who are wisest and most experienced are Men who have been born, lived, died and been resurrected: these are the post-mortal angels, and are Man's greatest spiritual teachers.

Post-mortal angels can communicate with us by the usual means of communication - spoken, visual, by writing etc - but of course (in the modern West, especially) such communications are prone to inattention, misrepresentation, misunderstanding; and are quantitatively utterly swamped by the mass media, government and corporate propaganda, trivial and dishonest social interactions and many other net-evil communications.

Therefore, the post-mortal angels also use direct knowledge, in the universal realm of reality. This is the 'underworld' realm which Man spontaneously but passively and unconsciously accesses in early cultures, early childhood and in sleep. But in such circumstances, the knowledge is not explicit and we are unaware of it except as feelings.

For modern Man, feelings are not enough - even if those feelings are broadly benign. For modern Man we must know - and know that we know - and what we know must be thought so that it may be integrated with all other knowledge.

(That is after all, the divine way of being - God knows everything explicitly, not as instinctive urges and aspirations.)

So - what the post-mortal angels need to tell us is incorporated into the universal realm of reality; and we can each of us know it IF we can think in such a way that we too are thinking in this realm. This is what I have termed Primary Thinking, which is the conscious and purposive intuitions of our true self.

However, modern Man does very little thinking with his true self, instead functioning mostly from a variety of superficial, labile, automatic, inculcated ways of 'processing' information... And when modern Man does think with the true self, then his modern metaphysics tells him that such thinking is meaningless, subjective, 'wishful thinking' or delusional.

However, THAT is where the knowledge of the spiritual teachers of Man is located - and if we want to know it (rather than merely to feel it) then we need to engage in Primary Thinking, and take it with the utmost seriousness.

So... the first message of the post-mortal angels is the two-fold information that Primary Thinking is necessary, and that it is primary... In other words, that this is what we most need to do; and that if and when we can achieve primary thinking it will become our primary basis for living - ultimately superseding all external forms of communications from authorities (including from churches).

We are to base ourselves and our lives upon our own, personal direct knowledge of reality; and not not secondhand/ communicated/ interpreted knowledge.

The second type of information involves hints as to what we will discover. This is already known, from the writings of prophets - but that is not sufficient, because we need to know it for ourselves and directly.

But what we will discover is that all Men are a family, we are all actual (not symbolic) brothers and sisters because we are actual children of God - who is therefore our Parent... or rather parents: Father and Mother. God, the creator, is our loving Father and Mother. This is absolutely vital knowledge without which we cannot understand anything of importance - and we each need to know it directly, not as an hypothesis.

This information also means that we are all divine, of God-nature; but embryonically so. We are flawed and immature Gods; but Gods we indeed are.

Furthermore, we are (potentially) even more closely spiritually-connected into families and 'clans' - our blood relations, our married spouses, and even (that rarest of rare relationships) our true friends may spiritually be bound by commitments of voluntary and mutual love. We are therefore connected in multiple ways, really connected. We are not alone: we are never alone.

This is a modern revelation - not to be found in the ancient scriptures; because it is an insight from the lives of post-mortal angels, our closest spiritual teachers; and results from their experiences in relatively-recent lives (past few hundred years), which have taught them the necessity of this truth.

Now, all this is vital and urgent knowledge, and will lead to a transformation of earthly life. But of course it will not lead to Heaven-on-Earth because we don't treat our known spouses, families and real-friends perfectly well... we are only flawed, incomplete, partly-grown gods.

Why am I saying this, as a mere 'communication' - with very limited distribution, prone to incomprehension and misunderstanding? The answer is that by knowing these things first as 'hypotheses' - some people may be encouraged to seek their validation: to look for them by seeking the reality-of and developing their ability-at Primary Thinking.

(Don't believe Steiner, don't believe me: take these insights as hypotheses - then find-out for sure, for yourself.)

And then they may find some or all of the hypotheses confirmed and clarified by their personal intuitions - which is the only thing that can make them real, and provide a solid basis for Life: for Life as it should-be.

Tuesday, 12 September 2017

This is one of the best autobiographies I have read; perhaps because it has a fascinating theme, satisfyingly discussed - as well as being very well written, by someone whose personality was sympathetic to me.

The main explicit theme is that of living (up to age 52 at the time of writing) with the strange and vast fame of being Christopher Robin from the four books published by his father in a four year period from 1924-8: two collections of poems - When we were very young, and Now we are six; and two volumes of Winnie-the-Pooh stories - Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner.

My own relationship with these books came in two stages. As a child I loved the poetry books, which I continue to regard as containing some of the best comic verse ever written; but I was ambivalent about the Pooh books. I liked some aspects of them - perhaps especially the characters of Piglet and Roo; but I found the tone to be what I would now characterise as 'arch': as a child I was aware that adults were being addressed over-my-head and that I was being laughed-at.

When my own children came to the books, I think the response was similar - the poems had a massive impact, but they did not want to hear all of the stories read-out, and didn't especially respond to them - despite that, by then, I had come to like them a lot more. On the other hand, they really enjoyed the Disney Pooh movies (and TV programmes) and watched them multiple times.

Nonetheless, I candidly acknowledge that these four books are all first rate classics of children's literature, and thoroughly deserve their reputation.

Christopher Robin's response to these books was positive as a young boy, but became negative as an older child, adolescent and young adult; mainly because he was an exceptionally shy and sensitive person (a trait inherited, with interest, from grandfather Milne, he tells us). Try as he might, he simply never got used-to the endless parade of people who made comments about this; and never was able to react spontaneously and appropriately - but became tongue tied and embarrassed. However, writing the autobiography was a coming-to-terms with the whole situation - and this provides a satisfying sense of closure to the book.

The implicit theme, which really gripped me, was the question: What to do with the rest of your life, after having a very happy childhood?

This was also the question that dominated the life of Christopher Robin's father - AA Milne himself; and consequently Christopher writes extremely well about the father with whom (especially aged 9-18, after his Nanny had left) he had such a close and empathic relationship.

It is also a question which has been very much a part of my own life trajectory; since I too had a very happy childhood including early-middle teen years, and I too felt (for a long time) that adult life did not remotely match-up. Indeed, according to the most vivid and cherished memories, one of the best aspects of being a non-child was the reawakening triggered by loving relationships with younger children - first my brother, later my own children.

Neither Christopher Robin nor his father ever came to terms with this, or found a way of regarding post-childhood life as anything other than a let-down - to be escaped-from to some extent, but never integrated with the world of work, chores, and shallow public interactions.

It is that matter of alienation again. As a child, especially a young child, we are not alienated because we are not self-conscious; we simply live 'in' our perceptions and feelings - we belong in the world; and when these sensations and perceptions are happy then we belong happily.

With the dawn of self-consciousness, we become aware of our-selves and that the sensations and perceptions are subjective, that we have a perspective, unique to our selves - and that survival and thriving in the 'external' world depends on living in an objective way that prioritises the 'external' view, and the separation of our-selves from Life.

As an adult, we are caught by an (apparently...) inescapable dilemma that we can only feel at home in the world by losing our self-consciousness; yet the more we attain this dissolving of awareness, the less we are aware of the situation - and the less we remember it. Adult Life becomes shallow, unreal, meaningless; especially when contrasted with the mythic depth of childhood.

Therefore, the happiness of a happy childhood is what makes of childhood something we are able to and want to think about; but this emphasises the inferior quality of adult 'happiness'... which seems merely a series of detached, separable, implication-less almost 'glandular' kind of 'pleasure' by contrast.

Here is centrally significant that both AA Mine and Christopher Robin were atheists (as adults) - because for the modern atheist this dilemma is absolutely inescapable; and the situation of adulthood can only get worse as (with age, and/or disease) feelings become blunted or unpleasant, and memories are distorted and/or lost.

True happiness is past, and the longer we live the more it slips away from us - even in imagination... For an honest and rigours thinker, the inescapable conclusion is that adult Life (therefore most of a full lifespan) is a waste of time, and worse than a waste of time: a horrible prospect with only one possible, miserable, ending...

It seems to me that very few modern people escape this fate; because the metaphysics of modernity enforces it. I mean, the fundamental assumptions of modern life ensure that this is the only outcome.

The situation is that childhood experience (for some people, anyway) feels to be the most valid thing experienced; yet the metaphysical assumptions of modernity has it that childhood experience and its memories are without validity. On the other hand; these fundamental assumptions are, indeed, assumptions; which means that they can be challenged and changed - but only by abandoning atheism and - first of all - becoming Christian. Christianity is the only positive, optimistic faith...

However, most Christians now and throughout history have been neither positive nor optimistic about mortal life. Happiness was deferred until post-mortal life in Heaven; and this world was pretty-much written off as a trial of temptations or even a torment. Hence the sense of being cut-off from God, from happiness; the yearning for death and resurrection among so many of the holiest Saints

To escape this utter misery requires a particular kind of Christianity, with a very different metaphysical basis than has been usual. It is still Christianity, but the philosophical explanation of the religion is utterly different from that taught by most theologians past and present.

And that is the main theme of this blog: developing a Christianity that is capable of integrating our-selves with this world, and our mortal selves with our post-mortal resurrected life... A Christianity that makes it clear what this life is positively for, beyond mere avoidance of damnation...

A Christianity which includes both the un-conscious world of a happy childhood and the self-awareness of functional modern adulthood; which explains how that childhood is permanent and actively relevant to life here-and-now.

This is what is made possible by regarding pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal life as theosis, and regarding intuitive and aware primary thinking as the divine mode of being, and this thinking as a real, true and external world in which we our-selves may participate.

If successful, this kind of Christianity will transform the bitter-sweet, down-trending Life-tragedy of a happy childhood seen from the perspective of alienated adulthood; into an unmitigated good-thing. Because we will know that nothing significant is lost and everything good remains objectively available - both now, and beyond the doors of death.

I wish I could have explained this to Christopher Robin and AA Milne; but it is simply too hard to explain; every individual must discover it for himself or herself; and for that to happen they must want it to happen and believe that it is a real possibility; and very few people will admit either, let-alone both, of these propositions.

*Note: I was impelled to read this book (which I have long intended to tackle), by the appearance of a new movie which is apparently 'inspired by' Christopher Robin's 'True Story'; which I will probably end-up watching, sooner or later... It seemed important to grasp the reality before it could be over-written by the 'inspired by'.

This point is general; whether we are talking about science, metaphysics or Christianity. The only answers worth having are simple and clear; but knowing enoughto ask the right questions and to understand these simple-clear answers requires a lot of effort and time.

Monday, 11 September 2017

I don't get it. All Leftists - and nearly-all who self-identify as being on the Right - seem obsessed by materialism (economics and politics) and completely and utterly ignore what very-obviously-to-me seems to be The Problem: I mean alienation.

Alienation is a convenient term for the cut-offness of modern life, its perceived meaninglessness, its purposelessness; the nihilism and despair which is - or at least seems (very obviously) to me - to be everywhere and near-universal...

Very obviously (to me), it is not lack of stuff that is the main problem for modern people; but that it all adds-up to nothing - and nothing they do add-up to anything.

(Take a look at modern Western people - and compare their situation with people elsewhere and at any point in history - and you would not jump straight to the conclusion that we are being oppressed by lack of stuff.)

Thoreau remarked that the mass of Men lead lives of quiet desperation - He was right; but apparently Men nowadays are utterly unaware of the fact; or else assume that their quiet desperation is due to lack of stuff...

(Rudolf Steiner writing:) Natural scientific thought has deeply influenced the formulation of present-day ideas. Those who are alert to the pulse of the times must take this trend into consideration.
Ideas derived from natural science conquer our thought-life with gathering momentum, and our unwilling hearts follow hesitantly and with apprehension. Not only the number thus conquered is important: there is a power inherent in natural scientific thought which convinces the observant that a modern conception of the world cannot exclude its impressions. This method of thought has gained widespread recognition and attracts people as if by magic.
The situation is not altered by the fact that isolated individuals can see how true science, through its own power has “long” led beyond the “shallow doctrines of force and matter,” taught by materialism. Far more important are those who boldly declare that a new religion should be built on natural scientific ideas.

Even if such people seem shallow and superficial to those who know the deeper spiritual requirements of humanity, nevertheless they should be noted. And those also must be considered who have allowed their heads to take precedence over their hearts.

These people are unable to free their intellects from natural scientific ideas. They are oppressed by the need for proof. But the religious needs of their souls cannot be satisfied by these natural scientific ideas because science offers too comfortless a perspective for their satisfaction.

Why be enthusiastic about beauty, truth and goodness if in the end everything is to be swept away into nothingness like a bubble of inflated brain tissue?

This is a feeling which oppresses many people like a nightmare. Therefore scientific ideas also oppress them, pressing their claims with tremendous authoritative force.

As long as they can, people remain blind to the discord in their souls. They think in accordance with natural science - so long as the experience of their senses and logic demand it, but they keep to the religious sentiments in which they have been educated, preferring to remain in darkness concerning these matters, a darkness which clouds their understanding. They have not the courage to struggle through to clarity.
*

There can be no doubt whatever that the method of thought derived from natural science is the greatest power in modern spiritual life. And one who speaks of the spiritual concerns of mankind may not pass it by heedlessly. Nevertheless it is also true that the method by which it attempts to satisfy spiritual needs is shallow and superficial.

If this were the right method the outlook would indeed be comfortless. Would it not be depressing to be forced to agree with those who say, “Man is a machine into which we put what we call food, and produce what we call thought. Think of that wonderful chemistry by which bread was changed into the divine tragedy of Hamlet!” Countless people, influenced by the natural scientific method of thought, seem compelled to assume an attitude in line with the above quotation, even when they believe they are not doing so. But are the demands made by natural science really as they are described by some of its representatives? The behavior of these representatives themselves proves that this is not the case. Their behavior in their own field is not such as many describe and demand in other fields. Would Darwin and Haeckel ever have made their great discoveries about the evolution of life if, instead of observing life and the structure of living beings, they had gone into the laboratory to make chemical experiments with tissue cut out of an organism?

Let us really follow in the footsteps of these explorers who appear as monumental figures in the development of modern science! We shall then apply to the higher regions of spiritual life what they have applied in the field of the observation of nature.

One who is investigating the nature of spirit can only learn from natural science. He really needs only to do as science does. But he must not allow himself to be misled by what individual representatives of natural science would dictate to him. He must investigate in the spiritual domain as they do in the physical, but he need not adopt their opinions about the spiritual world, confused as they are by their exclusive consideration of physical phenomena.

We shall act in conformity with natural science only when we study the spiritual evolution of man just as impartially as the naturalist observes the material world. We shall be led to higher methods which, although they cannot be those of natural science, yet hold good in the same sense.

My comment: It is telling that Steiner wrote the above analysis more than a century ago, yet we are certainly no further forward with this core, essential problem of our civilisation; indeed we are considerably further back from it - since it is hard to imagine any diagnosis so accurate being publised today.

Modern rigrous thinking has now narrowed the options down to acceptance of the scientific world view as authoritative and accepting the wholesale spiritual (then physical) destruction that this brings; or rejecting scince (either in totality, for the more rigour thinkers, or else rolling it back to some earlier civilisational level and holding it just-there - for those who allow themselves wishful thinking).

But the very possibility of a spirituality that is truly-scientific in method has essentially disappeared from Western apprehension - it is no longer even comprehensible (and this includes nearly all of Steiner's modern self-styled followers whom I have encountered in print; because the whole Anthroposophy movement has been fundamentally corrupted/ inverted by the incoherent and anti-Christian evil of New Leftism).

Yet Steiner was correct in 1902. He was, as Owen Barfield saw - completing the movement of human consciousness which began with the Romanticism of Coleridge and Goethe. Steiner was (in 1902, although this became sadly obscured and muddled in his later over-production of lectures and writings) decribing in outline the necessary basis of a true Christianity; both satisfying and robust.

This was based upon Steiner's philosophical breakthroughs in what he termed 'epistemology', but was actually metaphysics, leading up to The Philosophy of Freedom published in 1894.

Steiner described the reason for, and the basic method to attain, what I have been calling Primary Thinking - which is itself the true scientific attitude applied to human consciousness, and thence to Christianity.